5 ms·

I agree. But I wonder how much resistance you would get from the military, veterans, military families, and so on who make the argument that for every robot we

I agree. But I wonder how much resistance you would get from the military, veterans, military families, and so on who make the argument that for every robot we make a human soldier doesn't have to be put at risk. I don't agree with that line of thinking but it would be quite a debate to have.

kohanz 11y ago
> But I wonder how much resistance you would get from the military, veterans, military families, and so on who make the argument that for every robot we make a human soldier doesn't have to be put at risk. Or it could go the other way with those people and families worried about losing their livelihoods.
sbarre 11y ago
You make the counter-argument that their enemies will make the same argument to their populations, which lowers the bar for armed conflict on every side, and increases the odds of war coming to your homefront.
- sitkack 11y ago
  The only safe answer is for every country to invade the rest of the world immediately.
- ethanbond 11y ago
  This is exactly why I'm afraid of this future. If the richest nation can send their robots to rape and pillage other countries with no threat to their own population, why wouldn't they? It took public outrage over lost lives for us (the US) to pull out of a war that we were already losing (Vietnam). I can't imagine what it'd take if we were winning and not dying.
  - sbarre 11y ago
    > If the richest nation can send their robots to rape and pillage other countries with no threat to their own population, why wouldn't they? You're basically describing the US's drone war in the Middle East today. And think of how little resistance there is to that.
  - flashman 11y ago
    Well the robots probably wouldn't rape or pillage...
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      Maybe "Drawn and quartered", but that entirely depends on the programming the warlord prefares. After all, AIs might become the Kalashnikov's of the future: every self-respecting warlord has a gold-plated one.
sampo 11y ago
> But I wonder how much resistance you would get from the military, veterans, military families, and so on who make the argument that for every robot we make a human soldier doesn't have to be put at risk. But can't the same argument apply to biological and chemical weapons? How did it come to be, that there are treaties banning them?
ekidd 11y ago
But I wonder how much resistance you would get from the military, veterans, military families, and so on who make the argument that for every robot we make a human soldier doesn't have to be put at risk. On the other hand, do soldiers really want to defend themselves against flying, high-speed IEDs with target-recognition software? I mean, I've seen malfunctioning drones move so fast that I lose sight of them. Does anybody really want to see one of these things come over a compound wall carrying a payload of high explosives, and software for identifying groups of human targets and dodging defensive fire? Once you start an arms race, and once several big powers do the R&D, this would not be an easily controlled technology.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  > On the other hand, do soldiers really want to defend themselves against flying, high-speed IEDs with target-recognition software? I mean, I've seen malfunctioning drones move so fast that I lose sight of them. Does anybody really want to see one of these things come over a compound wall carrying a payload of high explosives, and software for identifying groups of human targets and dodging defensive fire? You basically just described a fire-and-forget missile, which is a technology that has been on the battlefield for over three decades.
  - BFatts 11y ago
    A fire-and-forget missile is a single directional device with minor corrections for targeting. It can't hover, back up, select its own target, avoid return fire, etc. So, no we haven't had this tech for three decades.
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      > A fire-and-forget missile is a single directional device with minor corrections for targeting. No it isn't. A fire-and-forget missile is a missile capable of dealing with every issue between the launching platform and the target. This much more complex than "minor corrections for targeting". > It can't hover, back up These are a function of a particular propulsion system, not guidance system. The vast majority of non-rotorcraft cannot hover or back up. > select its own target That is exactly what a fire-and-forget weapon does. The firing platform directs the weapon at a particular target to start, but the weapon makes the decision about what to hit. If it loses lock, it tries to reacquire. It does not necessarily reacquire the same target. In fact, you could blindfire most FF weapons and let the seeker pick a target in its path of travel, if you really wanted to. Rules of engagement typically prohibit this, but it is technically feasible. > avoid return fire Evasion is certainly something current weapons are theoretically capable of. It is not typically in the package, though, because it adds cost, size, and weight. Once these systems get to the point that they can be added to drones in a cost-effective manner they will likely be added to single-use weapon systems as well. > So, no we haven't had this tech for three decades. It has been a constant march of progress, but yes we have had weapons that can make targeting decisions for themselves for over three decades. The Mk-48 torpedo[1] has been in service since 1972 and has had since then the ability to travel a predetermined search pattern looking for targets and automatically attacking whatever it finds. The Mk-60 CAPTOR mine has a similar capability to discriminate and engage targets. The RGM-84 Harpoon[3] is launched by providing one or more "legs", then activating the missile's seeker to find and acquire a target; it is not actually fired "at" a particular ship in the conventional sense of the word. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)

kohanz 11y ago

> But I wonder how much resistance you would get from the military, veterans, military families, and so on who make the argument that for every robot we make a human soldier doesn't have to be put at risk. Or it could go the other way with those people and families worried about losing their livelihoods.

sbarre 11y ago

You make the counter-argument that their enemies will make the same argument to their populations, which lowers the bar for armed conflict on every side, and increases the odds of war coming to your homefront.

sitkack 11y ago
The only safe answer is for every country to invade the rest of the world immediately.
ethanbond 11y ago
This is exactly why I'm afraid of this future. If the richest nation can send their robots to rape and pillage other countries with no threat to their own population, why wouldn't they? It took public outrage over lost lives for us (the US) to pull out of a war that we were already losing (Vietnam). I can't imagine what it'd take if we were winning and not dying.
- sbarre 11y ago
  > If the richest nation can send their robots to rape and pillage other countries with no threat to their own population, why wouldn't they? You're basically describing the US's drone war in the Middle East today. And think of how little resistance there is to that.
- flashman 11y ago
  Well the robots probably wouldn't rape or pillage...
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    Maybe "Drawn and quartered", but that entirely depends on the programming the warlord prefares. After all, AIs might become the Kalashnikov's of the future: every self-respecting warlord has a gold-plated one.

sampo 11y ago

> But I wonder how much resistance you would get from the military, veterans, military families, and so on who make the argument that for every robot we make a human soldier doesn't have to be put at risk. But can't the same argument apply to biological and chemical weapons? How did it come to be, that there are treaties banning them?

ekidd 11y ago

But I wonder how much resistance you would get from the military, veterans, military families, and so on who make the argument that for every robot we make a human soldier doesn't have to be put at risk. On the other hand, do soldiers really want to defend themselves against flying, high-speed IEDs with target-recognition software? I mean, I've seen malfunctioning drones move so fast that I lose sight of them. Does anybody really want to see one of these things come over a compound wall carrying a payload of high explosives, and software for identifying groups of human targets and dodging defensive fire? Once you start an arms race, and once several big powers do the R&D, this would not be an easily controlled technology.

vonmoltke 11y ago
> On the other hand, do soldiers really want to defend themselves against flying, high-speed IEDs with target-recognition software? I mean, I've seen malfunctioning drones move so fast that I lose sight of them. Does anybody really want to see one of these things come over a compound wall carrying a payload of high explosives, and software for identifying groups of human targets and dodging defensive fire? You basically just described a fire-and-forget missile, which is a technology that has been on the battlefield for over three decades.
- BFatts 11y ago
  A fire-and-forget missile is a single directional device with minor corrections for targeting. It can't hover, back up, select its own target, avoid return fire, etc. So, no we haven't had this tech for three decades.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    > A fire-and-forget missile is a single directional device with minor corrections for targeting. No it isn't. A fire-and-forget missile is a missile capable of dealing with every issue between the launching platform and the target. This much more complex than "minor corrections for targeting". > It can't hover, back up These are a function of a particular propulsion system, not guidance system. The vast majority of non-rotorcraft cannot hover or back up. > select its own target That is exactly what a fire-and-forget weapon does. The firing platform directs the weapon at a particular target to start, but the weapon makes the decision about what to hit. If it loses lock, it tries to reacquire. It does not necessarily reacquire the same target. In fact, you could blindfire most FF weapons and let the seeker pick a target in its path of travel, if you really wanted to. Rules of engagement typically prohibit this, but it is technically feasible. > avoid return fire Evasion is certainly something current weapons are theoretically capable of. It is not typically in the package, though, because it adds cost, size, and weight. Once these systems get to the point that they can be added to drones in a cost-effective manner they will likely be added to single-use weapon systems as well. > So, no we haven't had this tech for three decades. It has been a constant march of progress, but yes we have had weapons that can make targeting decisions for themselves for over three decades. The Mk-48 torpedo[1] has been in service since 1972 and has had since then the ability to travel a predetermined search pattern looking for targets and automatically attacking whatever it finds. The Mk-60 CAPTOR mine has a similar capability to discriminate and engage targets. The RGM-84 Harpoon[3] is launched by providing one or more "legs", then activating the missile's seeker to find and acquire a target; it is not actually fired "at" a particular ship in the conventional sense of the word. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)